Comparison between the two systems to evaluate the appropriateness of endoscopy of the upper digestive tract

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to compare the diagnostic performance of the two systems for the evaluation of the appropriateness of upper digestive endoscopy suggested by the American Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) and by the European Panel on the Appropriateness of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (EPAGE). METHODS: Patients referred for the upper digestive endoscopy (EGD) to a University Outpatients Clinic of Northeastern Italy were consecutively included in this prospective observational study. Before the EGD, the endoscopist assigned the patients to one of the ASGE appropriateness classes; another endoscopist then identified the detailed clinical scenario for the patients, which corresponds to scenarios examined by EPAGE by using a nine-point scale: 1-3 inappropriate; 4-6 uncertain; and 7-9 appropriate. The relationship between the appropriateness of use and the presence of relevant endoscopic lesions (neoplasms, ulcers, esophagitis, erosive gastritis/duodenitis, stenosis, and varices) was assessed, calculating the sensitivity and the specificity for each of the ASGE criteria, and each of the EPAGE scores, and plotting them to form a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. The area under the ROC curve (AUC) provides a summary measure of test performance, and can vary from a minimum of 0.5 to a maximum of 1.0. We compared the AUC of the ROC curve derived from the ASGE criteria against that derived from the EPAGE criteria. RESULTS: A total of 2,300 consecutive patients were included in the study (42% men; mean age: 57.3; range: 12-99); comparison of appropriateness criteria according to the ASGE and EPAGE could be made for 2,000 patients. The AUC of the ROC curve derived from the ASGE criteria was 0.553 (95% CI: 0.527-0.579), significantly higher than the AUC of the ROC curve derived from the EPAGE score: 0.523 (95% CI: 0.497-0.549; p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: We suggest that the diagnostic yield for relevant endoscopic findings obtained by both the systems (ASGE and EPAGE) is low; slightly better results could be accomplished by the ASGE criteria.     

Left ventricular mass regression in the LIFE study: effect of previous antihypertensive treatment

BACKGROUND: Whether to include only those patients who have not had prior hypertension treatment in clinical trials of left ventricular (LV) mass reduction is controversial. Accordingly, our aim was to study the relationship between prior treatment and both baseline and 1-year echocardiographic LV mass in subjects enrolled in the Losartan Intervention For Endpoint reduction (LIFE) study. METHODS: We studied clinical and baseline echocardiographic data on 960 patients with electrocardiographically confirmed left ventricular hypertrophy enrolled in the electrocardiographic substudy of the LIFE study, 847 of whom had LV mass remeasured after 1 year of blinded treatment. The majority (75%) of these patients had prior medical treatment for hypertension. RESULTS: In multivariable regression analysis, controlling for age, sex, blood pressure (BP), body mass index, and indices of pump and myocardial function, prior antihypertensive treatment was not associated with either greater LV mass or relative wall thickness on the baseline study. Moreover, there was no significant difference between the 637 subjects who were previously treated and the 210 who were not treated with regard to the mean reduction in systolic or diastolic pressures (-25 +/- 17 v -24 +/- -16 and -13 +/- 9 mm Hg v -12 +/- 9 mm Hg), LV mass (-27 +/- 38 v -29 +/- 34 g), or LV mass/body surface area (-14 +/- 20 v -15 +/- 18 g/m(2)), all P >.05. CONCLUSIONS: Prior treatment is not associated with either greater LV mass or greater relative wall thickness when age, body mass index, sex, systolic BP, heart rate, or indices of LV volume load and systolic function are taken into account. In addition, prior treatment is not associated with lesser degrees of LV mass reduction. For design of future clinical trials, restriction of inclusion criteria to only previously untreated patients does not appear to be necessary when the selection criterion is electrocardiographically determined left ventricular hypertrophy.     

Criteria for the selective use of contrast-enhanced intra-operative ultrasound during surgery for colorectal liver metastases

Background

Contrast-enhanced intra-operative ultrasound (CE-IOUS) for colorectal liver metastases (CLMs) has become a part of clinical practice. Whether it should be selectively or routinely applied remains unclear. The aim of this study was to define criteria for the use of CE-IOUS.

Methods

One-hundred and twenty-seven patients underwent a hepatectomy for CLMs using IOUS and CE-IOUS. All patients underwent computed tomography (CT) and/or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) within 2 weeks prior to surgery. The reference was histology, and imaging at 6 months after surgery. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed. Statistical significance was set at P = 0.05.

Results

Using IOUS an additional 172 lesions in 51 patients were found. CE-IOUS found 14 additional lesions in 6 patients. Seventy-eight CLMs in 38 patients appeared within 6 months after surgery. The sensitivity, specificity, positive- and negative-predictive value were 63%, 98%, 100% and 27% for pre-operative imaging, 87%, 100%, 100% and 52% for IOUS, and 89%, 100%, 100% and 56% for IOUS+CE-IOUS, respectively. CE-IOUS allowed better tumour margin definition in 23 patients (18%), thus assisting resection. Analyses indicated that the presence of multiple (P = 0.014), and isoechoic CLMs (P = 0.049) were independently correlated with new findings at CE-IOUS.

Conclusions

Compared with IOUS, CE-IOUS improved detection and resection guidance. These additions are significant and demand its use in cases with multiple and isoechoic CLMs.     

Chronic ulcerative stomatitis: A comprehensive review and proposal for diagnostic criteria

Chronic ulcerative stomatitis (CUS) is an immune‐mediated disorder characterized by oral erosions and ulcers usually refractory to conventional treatments. The disease often involves middle‐aged and older women with painful lesions sometimes resembling those of erosive oral lichen planus (OLP). The most affected sites are the buccal mucosa, the gingiva and the tongue, but the skin is involved in 22.5% of cases. Histopathologic features in CUS are non‐specific and indistinguishable from those of OLP, with the exception of the presence of a mixed infiltrate composed of lymphocytes and plasma cells. Direct immunofluorescence (DIF) analysis reveals the presence of stratified epithelium‐specific antinuclear antibodies (SES‐ANA) in the lower third of the epithelium. The IgG antibodies detected on DIF are directed against the ?Np63α isoform of p63 expressed in the nuclei of the epithelial basal cells. A distinguishing feature of CUS is the low response to conventional corticosteroid therapy and the good outcome with hydroxychloroquine at the dosage of 200 mg/day or higher dosages. This paper presents a comprehensive review of CUS and is accompanied by a new case report (the 73rd case) and a proposal for updated diagnostic criteria.     

What have we learned about antiphospholipid syndrome from patients and antiphospholipid carrier cohorts?

Venous or arterial thrombosis or pregnancy morbidity in the presence of circulating antiphospholipid antibodies (aPL) define the antiphospholipid syndrome (APS). In terms of accepted APS criteria, aPL are detected by one coagulation test (lupus anticoagulant; LAC) and two immunoassays (anticardiolipin antibodies and anti-β2-glycoptrotein I antibodies). In patients with APS, a single positive test carries a much lower risk of thrombosis recurrence or new pregnancy loss than does multiple (or triple) positivity. The same holds true for aPL carriers, namely subjects with laboratory tests but without clinical criteria for APS. Thus, very different risk categories exist among patients with APS as well as in carriers of aPL. Triple positivity apparently identifies the pathogenic autoantibody (antidomain I-II of β2-glycoptrotein I); it is in this category of patients that trials on new therapeutic strategies should focus.